"Every time someone dies of an overdose it should shame our political class." Really? Why? What happened to personal responsibility? There is nothing the government can do to keep people from using and, sometimes, ODing on drugs.

Mind you, I'm not saying that nothing should be done to curb drug abuse. What I am saying is that drug policies should not be judged by whether or not anyone OD'd. That's unrealistic.

Andulamb:"Every time someone dies of an overdose it should shame our political class." Really? Why? What happened to personal responsibility? There is nothing the government can do to keep people from using and, sometimes, ODing on drugs.

Mind you, I'm not saying that nothing should be done to curb drug abuse. What I am saying is that drug policies should not be judged by whether or not anyone OD'd. That's unrealistic.

When judging a policy I would want to know the success rate. In this case a person who cleans up and is drug free after our policies treatment (prison and possibly rehab) would be considered a success when judging the policy. A person who ODs after treatment would be considered a failure when judging the policy. I'm relating this all to US policy as I do not know much about British policy.

He did really wella as the leader of the "third party" last time round.

Then he sold out pretty much all his party's principles for a power sharing deal with a much bigger party, and his previously good reputation is now as a pathetic lapdog. The party is polling at 9% way down on 2010 and behind the wholly dysfunctional and borderline racist UKIP. Next election comes around, he and his party are going to get wiped out everywhere bar their traditional strongholds.

Andulamb:"Every time someone dies of an overdose it should shame our political class." Really? Why? What happened to personal responsibility? There is nothing the government can do to keep people from using and, sometimes, ODing on drugs.

Mind you, I'm not saying that nothing should be done to curb drug abuse. What I am saying is that drug policies should not be judged by whether or not anyone OD'd. That's unrealistic.

I agree with you for the most part, but the political classes deal with public policy. If the unintended effects of public policy mess up personal responsibility, the political class should be obligated to notice and fix that.

The part of your statement I disagree with is "There is nothing the government can do to keep people from using and, sometimes, ODing on drugs." Actually, there is nothing the government can do to prevent EVERYONE from using and, sometimes, ODing on drugs. The government can implement laws that regulate strength, purity, and dosage of drugs they actually review. People tend not to OD when they know these things. Some will, but fewer than when people buy from dealers who failed high school chemistry. I am less likely to OD with a pill from a company named Merck than a guy named Mark.

To take an obvious example, beer, wine, and spirits are regulated by the government. People still die in drunk driving accidents. However, relatively few die because they accidentally ingest methanol instead of ethanol. Also, people know that beer isn't going to range between 1 percent and 80 percent ethanol, depending on how much rubbing alcohol it is cut with. When the effective dosage ranges from shot glass to six pack, it's a lot more difficult to prevent an overdose.

He did really wella as the leader of the "third party" last time round.

Then he sold out pretty much all his party's principles for a power sharing deal with a much bigger party, and his previously good reputation is now as a pathetic lapdog. The party is polling at 9% way down on 2010 and behind the wholly dysfunctional and borderline racist UKIP. Next election comes around, he and his party are going to get wiped out everywhere bar their traditional strongholds.

He did really wella as the leader of the "third party" last time round.

Then he sold out pretty much all his party's principles for a power sharing deal with a much bigger party, and his previously good reputation is now as a pathetic lapdog. The party is polling at 9% way down on 2010 and behind the wholly dysfunctional and borderline racist UKIP. Next election comes around, he and his party are going to get wiped out everywhere bar their traditional strongholds.

I said he wouldn't last long, I was just wrong about the smart part. 8-)

Andulamb:"Every time someone dies of an overdose it should shame our political class." Really? Why? What happened to personal responsibility? There is nothing the government can do to keep people from using and, sometimes, ODing on drugs.

I dunno, by either by treating addiction for drugs with known toxicities at as a disease and allowing doctors to treat that disease by providing controlled quantities of untainted drugs to the seriously addicted, or by allowing free use of drugs which have LD50s measure in kilograms.

Or we could just treat addicts as subhuman scum that we're willing to throw on the scrapheap of life. Then we bill their negligent kin for their corpse's disposal.

Here's an example - Diamorphine (i.e. heroin) from NICE in the UK: Chronic pain, 5-10 mg regularly every four hours by subcutaneous or intramuscular injection. The dose may be increased according to individual needs. Cost: £23.00 for 100 5mg doses. Even the most hardened junkie at 10mg every 4 hours can have their craving satisfied and sleep 8 hours a day for a total cost to the nation of £1.76, or $2.89 in Jeebus Money per day. Or we could have them out robbing and breaking into folks houses and set expensive, expensive police officers on them.

WTF is "personal responsibility" in the context of policy discussion? This is not dinner at grandma's, if you don't have anything useful to contribute, keep your mouth shut and let the grownups talk. Even telling everyone to "stop doing that" still requires a media buy and a creative campaign. Throwing up your hands and making us all watch you do it is dumb and you should feel dumb.

Subliterati:Even the most hardened junkie at 10mg every 4 hours can have their craving satisfied

The overdoses had enough to satisfy a craving, they took more. Functionally it's the same as that guy found hanging in his bedroom with his dick in his hand, they want the feel-good so bad they take irrational risks to do so.

Andulamb:"Every time someone dies of an overdose it should shame our political class." Really? Why? What happened to personal responsibility? There is nothing the government can do to keep people from using and, sometimes, ODing on drugs.

Mind you, I'm not saying that nothing should be done to curb drug abuse. What I am saying is that drug policies should not be judged by whether or not anyone OD'd. That's unrealistic.

You shouldn't use the term "personal responsibility" on such a liberal site like Fark. Farkers will go apeshiat on you. That term is like a crucifix to a vampire.

mccallcl:WTF is "personal responsibility" in the context of policy discussion?

Generally, it refers to removing government influence over a behavior, and letting the responsible do as they will, and the irresponsible to suffer their own personal outcomes. Wouldn't even require a big media presentation, just a change in political and law enforcement policy. "If you want to do heroin, fine. We won't lock you up or stop you. But if you wreck your body, your liable for the costs, and if you die, you die."

Subliterati:Andulamb: "Every time someone dies of an overdose it should shame our political class." Really? Why? What happened to personal responsibility? There is nothing the government can do to keep people from using and, sometimes, ODing on drugs.

I dunno, by either by treating addiction for drugs with known toxicities at as a disease and allowing doctors to treat that disease by providing controlled quantities of untainted drugs to the seriously addicted, or by allowing free use of drugs which have LD50s measure in kilograms.

Or we could just treat addicts as subhuman scum that we're willing to throw on the scrapheap of life. Then we bill their negligent kin for their corpse's disposal.

Here's an example - Diamorphine (i.e. heroin) from NICE in the UK: Chronic pain, 5-10 mg regularly every four hours by subcutaneous or intramuscular injection. The dose may be increased according to individual needs. Cost: £23.00 for 100 5mg doses. Even the most hardened junkie at 10mg every 4 hours can have their craving satisfied and sleep 8 hours a day for a total cost to the nation of £1.76, or $2.89 in Jeebus Money per day. Or we could have them out robbing and breaking into folks houses and set expensive, expensive police officers on them.

Stop being a dick. Please.

But, don't you realize how many tanks per day we could buy to store in warehouses because the Army doesn't want or need them for that $2.89? My God, man; where are your priorities?!?

Boojum2k:Subliterati: Even the most hardened junkie at 10mg every 4 hours can have their craving satisfied

The overdoses had enough to satisfy a craving, they took more. Functionally it's the same as that guy found hanging in his bedroom with his dick in his hand, they want the feel-good so bad they take irrational risks to do so.

Irrational risks, sure. But often, those risks are unknowable. If I buy moonshine from a guy on the street it might be 60 proof, or 100 proof, or 3 parts methylated spirits. So drinking it is a risk.

I don't drink moonshine, and the reason is I can get my intoxicants from a controlled source, at a consistent quality and concentration.

That's not true with heroin; every new batch the junkie scores could be unknown purity, or cut with any kind of shiat. That part of the risk can only be managed by regulating and taxing legal supply.

Andulamb:"Every time someone dies of an overdose it should shame our political class." Really? Why? What happened to personal responsibility? There is nothing the government can do to keep people from using and, sometimes, ODing on drugs.

Mind you, I'm not saying that nothing should be done to curb drug abuse. What I am saying is that drug policies should not be judged by whether or not anyone OD'd. That's unrealistic.

Agreed. What he should have said is, "Every time some drug lord orders people killed to protect his drug distribution turf, it should shame our political class."

gwowen:That's not true with heroin; every new batch the junkie scores could be unknown purity, or cut with any kind of shiat. That part of the risk can only be managed by regulating and taxing legal supply.

Moonshine still exists alongside legal liquor, bootleg cigarettes are a huge deal too. How are the junkies going to afford the inspection-paid-for high-quality heroin, and why would they when they can still get the cheap shiat from a dealer?It's not a bad idea, really, worth doing, but it'll help wealthy addicts far more than the poor ones. Possibly better than not doing it, but there's still the law of unintended consequences.

AdrienVeidt:Why isn't 'voting for politicians that will help solve problems for many people at once' ever seen as 'personal responsibility'?

Because it's almost always "voting for politicians who will force my morality on others, at their expense, rather than me getting off my ass and doing something myself." No personal responsibility involved.

Boojum2k:gwowen: That's not true with heroin; every new batch the junkie scores could be unknown purity, or cut with any kind of shiat. That part of the risk can only be managed by regulating and taxing legal supply.

Moonshine still exists alongside legal liquor, bootleg cigarettes are a huge deal too. How are the junkies going to afford the inspection-paid-for high-quality heroin, and why would they when they can still get the cheap shiat from a dealer?It's not a bad idea, really, worth doing, but it'll help wealthy addicts far more than the poor ones. Possibly better than not doing it, but there's still the law of unintended consequences.

I agree, broadly. But here in the UK moonshine isn't really a thing, and bootleg ciggies tend merely to be illegally imported mass produced cigs from elsewhere. A customs issue, but not an increased health risk.

So let's not make perfect the enemy of good. There are still alcoholics dying from drink, but the answer I'd not prohibition.

Boojum2k:Subliterati: Even the most hardened junkie at 10mg every 4 hours can have their craving satisfied

The overdoses had enough to satisfy a craving, they took more. Functionally it's the same as that guy found hanging in his bedroom with his dick in his hand, they want the feel-good so bad they take irrational risks to do so.

No, that is not how overdoses happen. Street drugs are not clearly labeled or at set doses. People typically OD when they get something much stronger than the "usual" stuff, or when they take drugs in an unusual setting (a strange effect, but real). For example, the recent death of that actor dude with three names was due to him getting heroin mixed with Fentanyl, a much stronger opiate that is legal to use medically in the US (unlike weaker heroin) and which occasionally finds its way into the black market (almost always resulting in a string of ODs).

Really, you know nothing of drugs or health policy in regards to drugs.

Right, so in your mind, drug addiction is not actually a problem. So why think about it at all? What's the difference between what you're suggesting and just not caring? Besides your feelings, which since you're a stranger to all of us, don't matter? Oh, right, if you really didn't care I wouldn't have to look at your stupid words. So why post?

The real answer, I suspect, is because you're a spiteful person that enjoys the suffering of others, and you use your opinion that they deserve it as an excuse so you don't seem like a shiathead. Well, we're on to you, shiathead. I personally don't want to have to keep paying for addicts to die and commit crimes. I live in a major city, not some prairie cabin, and the actions of others effect me personally because they are in close physical proximity.

I see a problem and I try to solve it. Crackheads and junkies are a problem. If you don't think so, then buzz off. Your opinion is as common as dirt, you're wasting all of our time with your bullshiat. Save it for Facebook.

gwowen:Boojum2k: gwowen: That's not true with heroin; every new batch the junkie scores could be unknown purity, or cut with any kind of shiat. That part of the risk can only be managed by regulating and taxing legal supply.

Moonshine still exists alongside legal liquor, bootleg cigarettes are a huge deal too. How are the junkies going to afford the inspection-paid-for high-quality heroin, and why would they when they can still get the cheap shiat from a dealer?It's not a bad idea, really, worth doing, but it'll help wealthy addicts far more than the poor ones. Possibly better than not doing it, but there's still the law of unintended consequences.

I agree, broadly. But here in the UK moonshine isn't really a thing, and bootleg ciggies tend merely to be illegally imported mass produced cigs from elsewhere. A customs issue, but not an increased health risk.

So let's not make perfect the enemy of good. There are still alcoholics dying from drink, but the answer I'd not prohibition.

I'll agree with that. Would probably help some, not change some, and as for the obsessive addicts who will still OD, well as I noted earlier rope and a dick is still legal, pretty much the same way to go out.

Right, so in your mind, drug addiction is not actually a problem. So why think about it at all? What's the difference between what you're suggesting and just not caring? Besides your feelings, which since you're a stranger to all of us, don't matter? Oh, right, if you really didn't care I wouldn't have to look at your stupid words. So why post?

The real answer, I suspect, is because you're a spiteful person that enjoys the suffering of others, and you use your opinion that they deserve it as an excuse so you don't seem like a shiathead. Well, we're on to you, shiathead. I personally don't want to have to keep paying for addicts to die and commit crimes. I live in a major city, not some prairie cabin, and the actions of others effect me personally because they are in close physical proximity.

I see a problem and I try to solve it. Crackheads and junkies are a problem. If you don't think so, then buzz off. Your opinion is as common as dirt, you're wasting all of our time with your bullshiat. Save it for Facebook.

You spend a lot of time being emotional and very little using critical thinking or reason. You assume motivations beyond Fark Snark and insist on being insulting even after I asked you for a plan, and after I agreed with another's legalization plan due to rational reasons provided. It sounds like you have a personal stake in this, maybe a close friend or family member who suffers from addiction. If that is the case I'm sorry I was offensive, it can be hard for people on either end of that kind of illness and I hope treatment works.

Andulamb:"Every time someone dies of an overdose it should shame our political class." Really? Why? What happened to personal responsibility? There is nothing the government can do to keep people from using and, sometimes, ODing on drugs.

Mind you, I'm not saying that nothing should be done to curb drug abuse. What I am saying is that drug policies should not be judged by whether or not anyone OD'd. That's unrealistic.

with legalization comes safer dosing and less ODing through education. Don't let people figure out dosing. Tell them how much to use safely

stirfrybry:Andulamb: "Every time someone dies of an overdose it should shame our political class." Really? Why? What happened to personal responsibility? There is nothing the government can do to keep people from using and, sometimes, ODing on drugs.

Mind you, I'm not saying that nothing should be done to curb drug abuse. What I am saying is that drug policies should not be judged by whether or not anyone OD'd. That's unrealistic.

with legalization comes safer dosing and less ODing through education. Don't let people figure out dosing. Tell them how much to use safely

Boojum2k:AdrienVeidt: Why isn't 'voting for politicians that will help solve problems for many people at once' ever seen as 'personal responsibility'?

Because it's almost always "voting for politicians who will force my morality on others, at their expense, rather than me getting off my ass and doing something myself." No personal responsibility involved.

Did you just say that voting involves no personal responsibility? Or are you asserting that 'random citizen #34,639,761' has more power to affect change within a society than an elected official? And, you're aware that the politicians that force their morality via law are the same ones preventing productive and benevolent drug policy from being enacted?

Boojum2k:Moonshine still exists alongside legal liquor, bootleg cigarettes are a huge deal too. How are the junkies going to afford the inspection-paid-for high-quality heroin, and why would they when they can still get the cheap shiat from a dealer?

Or, you could learn lessons from more enlightened countries, and how they deal with heroin addicts who are unable to kick their habit.

Provide them a safe, private and supervised way to administer their measured dose with a doctor's supervision.

Of course, it would be best for people to not be on heroin, but what purpose does it serve to incarcerate (at cost to the tax payer) those that can't do without it? Will making criminals of them serve anyone's interests?

Andulamb:"Every time someone dies of an overdose it should shame our political class." Really? Why? What happened to personal responsibility? There is nothing the government can do to keep people from using and, sometimes, ODing on drugs.

Mind you, I'm not saying that nothing should be done to curb drug abuse. What I am saying is that drug policies should not be judged by whether or not anyone OD'd. That's unrealistic.

No, you will never have zero ODs. But if the policy increases the number then that is clearly an issue. And prohibition does increase the risks. It prevents people from seeking assistance and forces them to deal with criminals and prevents any kind of regulation to ensure a safe and consistent supply.

He did really wella as the leader of the "third party" last time round.

Then he sold out pretty much all his party's principles for a power sharing deal with a much bigger party, and his previously good reputation is now as a pathetic lapdog. The party is polling at 9% way down on 2010 and behind the wholly dysfunctional and borderline racist UKIP. Next election comes around, he and his party are going to get wiped out everywhere bar their traditional strongholds.

A power-sharing agreement is part of the parliamentary system, it's the American "ideological purity" bullshiat that causes so much retardation in the US.

He did really wella as the leader of the "third party" last time round.

Then he sold out pretty much all his party's principles for a power sharing deal with a much bigger party, and his previously good reputation is now as a pathetic lapdog. The party is polling at 9% way down on 2010 and behind the wholly dysfunctional and borderline racist UKIP. Next election comes around, he and his party are going to get wiped out everywhere bar their traditional strongholds.

Sold out? He is the most successful Lib Dem leader in living memory. He has turned a party from also-rans to people at the heart of government pushing the Lib Dem agenda. The biggest problem is that they are a minority part of the government so shouldn't dominate the policies.

Boojum2k:Subliterati: Even the most hardened junkie at 10mg every 4 hours can have their craving satisfied

The overdoses had enough to satisfy a craving, they took more. Functionally it's the same as that guy found hanging in his bedroom with his dick in his hand, they want the feel-good so bad they take irrational risks to do so.

You know how we can tell you are talking out of your hat? Because the vast majority of OD's are caused by the uneven quality of street drugs. You get used to one level of "purity" and the next batch is 5x what you have been using and your 'normal' dose is now deadly. Add in some other cut, like that actor last week, and the results are not favorable.

Users using known purity drugs only OD on purpose since they can take a known, exact dose rather than some guess.

But go ahead, keep telling yourself one of the Big Lies, if it makes you feel better about condeming someone to a grisly death.